Slashdot Mirror
Google Chrome Now Has Resource-Blocking Adblock
MackieChan writes "It seems to have slipped under the radar, but Google Chrome now has resource-blocking abilities, and may have had the ability for some time. Using the 'beforeload' event on the document, an extension can now intercept resources from loading. Adblock for Chrome has already added it, and I expect the other 'ad-blocking' extensions have as well. Before you start praising Google, however, it's the WebKit team that deserves your credit; one Chromium developer responded to praise by stating '... thank Apple — they added it to WebKit, we just inherited it.' Firefox vs. Chrome just got a bit more exciting."
Does anybody actually use Firefox any more? Every reason people used to give in favor of Firefox now applies to Chrome, times ten.
Maybe not
Well, you have to admire that the biggest online advertising corporation on the internet didn't pull out the ad blocking feature on it's own brand of webkit browser. Yes, Google is a corporation like any other, but at least they have a little respect for not pissing it's costumers off. I think a lot of companies in the same position would have made it so their browser ADDED ads.
The same people (person?) that make Adblock for Chrome also make Adblock for Safari (5.0+) Since the feature was ported from Webkit into Chrome, I wonder if Safari has the same ability.
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
A Slashdot story with impeccable grammar? Something doesn't feel right.
It doesn't catch every single resource -- ad blocking plugins for Chrome admit that it won't catch everything and still has to just hide some ads. And it's not nearly powerful enough for NoScript to work.
So there is still no Firefox vs. Chrome/Chromium. Firefox still leads, big time, because of this issue.
I'm rooting for Chrome/Chromium/Webkit to get proper blocking abilities, because it's great otherwise. But until they can do what's necessary to get true blocking, I won't use it.
This is a meta-comment: if Slashdot is going to have stories placed so randomly, then the whole category system is pointless and you could just as well junk it altogether.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Apple is closely involved with Webkit (it's the backend Safari uses), and this feature that made better ad-blocking possible was contributed by Apple. So it's not entirely random.
well, if google could pull off an abduction of million of users not just by its general grasping hold on the internet, but by the main software tool used for navigating the web, then perhaps they could eventually just take hold of your behaviour, existence and essence?
Who have ALWAYS had a resource blocker rather than just an ad-blocker...
The same people (person?) that make Adblock for Chrome also make Adblock for Safari (5.0+) [safariadblock.com] Since the feature was ported from Webkit into Chrome, I wonder if Safari has the same ability. - by rritterson (588983) writes: on Tuesday July 20, @01:45AM (#32960614)
See subject-line above, because a custom HOSTS file will work on any browser that there is for blocking out content you do not want to see inclusive not only of ad banners but also of known bad sites or servers that serve up malicious content and across all of your web bound applications (like email for example, not just webbrowsers or worse yet as in the case of adblock alone, browser add ons which function for 1 or 2 webbrowsers only) and you can also speed up your requests for hosts/domains resolutions by hardcoding them into a HOSTS file rather than spending time + resources calling out to DNS servers (which could be downed or compromised per Dan Kaminsky's findings no less), speeding yourself up more and in a way that adblock cannot. Plus, by doing this hardcode of hostsnames/domainnames to IP address, you also avoid being on DNS requests logs from your isp/bsp (dual bonus). Fact is, any system out there that uses an IP stack based off the BSD reference design (I don't know of any currently that are not in fact that are of modern design at least) can use a HOSTS file this/these way(s).
Looking here we can see that, for 2009, Google made 23,651 million in revenue. Considering that 22,889 of those millions were from advertising, you have to wonder how long google will tolerate ad blocking in their products. Sure, it is fine now as not many people use chrome, and even fewer of those people install an ad blocking plug-in, but what about if it becomes more popular? Will they still tolerate it then? One wonders what would happen to google if Microsoft decided to make ad blocking default in Internet Explorer.
Whereas people using internet explorer as a rule won't probably care that much , I suspect firefox user in percentage (if not majorly) will care about noscript, adblock. I don't know many people without noscript and/or adblock. No granted , that could be a selection bias here, as I work in IT.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
As others have pointed out before, Apple is doing this because they are trying to kill the Web. Apple introduced iAds. They only work on iPad/iPhone and soon Mac and they work outside the web so if they can manage to get lots of people to block ads on the web then advertisers will start to see iAds as the new must use service.
First, NoScript does much more than just block JavaScript.
Second, NoScript makes it possible to restrict JavaScript based on the originating domain; that means I can enable JavaScript for e.g. forums.bioware.com and deny for e.g. ea.com. When I visit forums.bioware.com it will not load scripts from ea.com and I can still have a snappy experience on forums.bioware.com. (Ea.com is, for some reason, a slow piece of shit.)
HAND.
Xmarks lets you store bookmarks wherever you want instead of where Google wants. Plus, it's cross-browser.
Oh, and not everyone you disagree with is a troll.
HAND.
Is everyone ever going to make an adblock-alike which, rather than "blocking" ads, just prioritizes them differently so I don't need to wait for fifty ads to load before I can view actual page content? I really don't mind ads. I'm okay with them. I don't want to block them, and I think people who do block them are assholes. But I don't want to wait for them.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
I mean what kind of sick fun is to watch a normal person run against a disabled and still win? Firefox has the base of the oldest web browser still alive. It had it all and the best results were in competition with something like Internet Explorer 4.0 or something. After a few change of names it is still the same dated design with some extra bloat and hacks for the Acid test. The firefox fork started promising with the lightest pack... but by version 1.0 it was already about screwing people and getting the google money. At this point it was more than obvious that at a certain point in the future Google will cut the middle man and do things right. Google Chrome has a not so long history and it is already waaay ahead of Firefox. And while Firefox is cheating the usage numbers by fetching pages ahead and other features like this: Chrome delivers. Some time ago there was no comparison between the two. Now Chrome has something more (the news is quite old) yet Firefox can't push the JS compiler yet. By the time Firefox will deliver their fixes Chrome would be further away with the usability. So... there is no competition/.
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
i hate to sound like Kyle Reese, but this is how it happens:
July 2010, Apple adds ad-blocking to WebKit.
it makes its way slowly into most popular web browsers cutting off the revenue stream for content publishers on the internet.
those publishers make a move onto one of several closed platforms originally designed for mobile platforms.
after an initial intense fight, a single closed platform dominates. the others fade away.
internet use drops significantly. only free content is available on it, and the mainstream views it increasingly as a refuge for subversives. most households disconnect.
April 3rd, 2017: the internet backbone is shut down.
premium content and visiting traffic moves predominantly to the closed platform.
I installed Privoxy. Doesn't matter which browser I use now.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
And for the rest, you can do this at the DNS level. In fact, analyzing the logs of a small local ISP I consluted for, 25 freaking percent of all http connections go to domains that absolutely don't deserve being resolved. Hijacking these not only makes you save bandwidth, but also is good for your customers' mental well-being.
Censoring "subversive sites", porn, etc is not only evil but also makes customers upset. Yet censoring doubleclick.com is something no free speech advocate is going to object to.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Thank you. If I hadn't just gotten rid of my mod points I'd mod you up. People are all about wanting 'free' web content, but they aren't willing to let the ads that pay for said content to load? That is indeed an assholish thing to do, or at the very least quite selfish.
there already exist pages that will not load the genuine content until the page actually responds with verification that the ad content has loaded in the browser
the ad content will say send a code via ajax back to the server: "i'm now alive in the browser, showing dancing mortgage seekers... ok send the article"
if enough people block ads, this will be the norm
i'm annoyed by intrusive ads and interstitials and articles broken out over 15 pages like everyone else, but the publisher needs to make cash to keep publishing the content you want, and they will feel the pressure to escalate the arms race. hopefully they will understand their ads shouldn't be too intrusive, but its been my experience that sites where the ads are too intrusive are sites without any content worth my time anyways
you don't really have to block ads, you just have to find quality sites
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
FWI, it's had gestures for quite a while. A quick extensions search pulls up 10 results that are all related to mouse gestures. I remember using gestures unofficially almost right when it came out, and officially soon after.
Almost, but not quite. There shouldn't be a comma before "and" in the first sentence. The remainder of the sentence, "may have had the ability for some time", isn't an independent clause.
I wait 2 years before my first slashdot post, proofread it multiple times, have my girlfriend proofread it, and then get an "impeccable grammar" praise.
Then you have to come along and take it all away.
Damn you I say, damn you Mr. 4 digit! ...I'm going back to my corner now...
What you're describing is exactly how this new adblocker (as Firefox's adblocker always has) works: it blocks the ads *before* the browser tries to fetch them. So no fetch, no DNS request.
And the HOSTS file is more insecure as a solution because it either:
1) Has no update mechanism
or
2) Has update mechanism that depends on a daemon that requires access to the internet *and* access to important files like HOSTS.
While this adblocker only requires access to browser profile files.
Dilbert RSS feed
I'd like to know if "Resource-blocking" applies to scripts as well.
eg. If Chrome can block both scripts and images from doubleclick.net then this feature could be 99% of what most people want from a junk-blocker.
(No, I can't be bothered to go and investigate for myself)
No sig today...
> Why would you want to use No Script?
To make web sites readable. I can't read text when there is stuff moving around the screen screaming for my attention.
AdBlock would do 95% of the same, but the ads pay for the content, so I don't like to block them.
> In fact a lot of sites would be crippled by it.
Permanently deblocking a trusted site is a one mouse click-and-drag operation. You can also temporarily deblock a site, or a single object.
> Really there's no benefit here besides feeding one's paranoia.
That's not my main reason, but I admit that it makes me feel safer clicking links on sites like reddit (/. has a better, if slower, screening process).
More greedy than the creator of ads.
Until Chrome gets Find as You Type, they will have to pry Firefox from my cold dead hands
I wonder if the Chrome developers will get around to working on the huge memory leaks as noted in this report and Bug 5820.
So, if Google makes a good ad blocking system that is included by default, many people will just use that. That means they can control what it does, and what defaults it has. Thus maybe by default it only blocks annoying ads. It stops interstitials, animated crap, popups/unders and so on. However it permits text ads and simple banner ads, which is what Google does. So people say "Ahh this is nice, the Internet isn't annoying," and don't go looking for anything else, or even adjusting the settings.
You have to remember many people don't hate ads, what they hate is ANNOYING ads. I personally don't mind ads, sometimes they are even interesting. I don't run ad block because I appreciate sites need to make money. However I do run Flashblock because I hate annoying ads and that's what they usually are. I hate ads that interrupt my browsing, or that put a heavy load on my system. So an adblock software that just blocks the annoying shit would be ok in my book.
If they include nothing, people have to look elsewhere. Maybe what they get is an app written by a "No ads at all ever," kind of zealot that just straight blocks everything, including Google. that hurts them, of course.
As such by being pragmatic about it, they can have a measure of control over it. If they just try to pretend it doesn't exist, they may get something they don't want.
If you don't want me to see your site for free, don't put it on the internet.
10 ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER BROWSER ADDONS ALONE, & EVEN DNS SERVERS:
Taken from -> http://forums.windowsforum.org/index.php?s=35faafcfc2596ff0fdd2a54a2717153b&showtopic=33716&st=60
1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them)!
2.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).
3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).
4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).
5.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).
6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, updated and obtained (for reliable ones -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file[/url] OR see lists below ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)
7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers, as they are NOT code, & because of what's next too
8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.
9.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE - NOt just a single webbrowser type (e.g. FireFox/Mozilla & its addons exemplify this, such as ADBLOCK)
10.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - You might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own, & this? This stops that cold, too! Bonus...
Still, it's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security".
---
To keep "ontop of the latest known malicious sites" online? See these sites (1 I mentioned here already, this is the rest of the list I use, & others too):
START OF WEBSITES & SOURCES + TOOLS I USED TO POPULATE THIS LIST + MY ORIGINAL LIST OF BLOCKED ADBANNERS SERVERS
http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/
http://www.malwareur...isting-urls.php
https://zeustracker....p?filter=online
http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml
http://securitylabs....ent/alerts.aspx
http://www.stopbadware.org
http://blog.fireeye.com/
http://mtc.sri.com/
http://www.scansafe....r/threat_alerts
http://news.netcraft.com
http://www.shadowserver.org/
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Hosts_file
http://www.mvps.org/
http://someonewhocares.org/
http://hostsfile.mine.nu/hosts0
http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download
http://www.stopbadware.org/home
Between they, & SpyBot "Search & Destroy"? You have most of, if not ALL of what a "body needs" fo
It may shock some people, but there was an Internet (and a web) before there were commercially supported websites.
It was smaller, but it worked just fine. In fact, it worked beautifully. Many of us want it back.
You wouldn't steal a movie.
So why would you steal webpages?
Blocking ad content is stealing.
It's a weird program for Google to create considering they own the biggest Publisher and Advertiser ad serving system - DoubleClick. Also, is this soon to be the end of free website access as publishers are forced to start charging users to access their sites if the advertising is being blocked?
If you like Web Developer, you really should check out FireBug. It is truly an amazing tool available only for Firefox that allows you to debug JavaScript code, inspect elements, make changes on the fly -- basically Web Developer on steroids. The only limitation at this point is that it does not appear to work with the new Firefox yet. Hopefully it will be compatible before the new version comes out of beta.
This tool if for no other reason will ensure that Firefox is always on my machine even if I use Chrome for day-to-day browsing.
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
Excitement about browsers is 1990's.
And that's adblock's MAIN problem: It's limited to single browsers only, and doesn't cover other programs that are also potentially threatened by bad sites or scripts even such as email programs that use HTML, like Outlook etc.
Using daemons?? Not needed in HOSTS files. Where do you get your misinformation from???
Also, to update adblock???? You also need internet access also!
Oh my, is apk still around? Aren't you getting bored of spreading your hosts file nonsense?
(Disclaimer: Yes, I know who that guy is and that discussion is futile. I am bored. Let me poke the troll. Brightens up the day every time.)
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
Just installed the extension, since I was curious. There are options to allow Google Text Ads....since I don't mind them I left them enabled. I suspect if most people don't mind them, this doesn't affect Google's revenue stream.
An interesting bug I noticed.....the extension doesn't work in Incognito mode.
Anybody who subjects themselves willingly to advertising has completed the program; they are now "Consumers" and not people.
Unsolicited advertising is evil. Period. It destroys cultures. It destroys societies.
Did you know that women who shave their armpit hair do so because one razor blade company realized that they could double their sales if they could get women the use their product along with men? So they began an ad campaign which explained that body hair was "dirty", people believed it, and now women in the West shave their armpits. We now, as a culture, because a razor blade company wanted money, have an entirely altered body image. The base programming of our minds is different because of advertising. This is just one of many, many cases. Advertising is a giant mind-fuck; it studies human herd behavior and taps into the worst automatic elements inside us all and punches those buttons mercilessly with one goal; to subvert human culture for profit.
Unsolicited advertising is anti-human, anti-life and it is NOT an acceptable or necessary evil.
If I want to know about your product, then I will seek out a forum where your items are listed. I have no problem with that. There are plenty of healthy ways to get the message out, of sharing NEWS of your efforts in the business world without having to attack the mind.
And the argument regarding revenue for web content is nonsense anyway; People who are willing to look at ads due to a sense of moral duty, (and that side of their behavior is wonderful, and I applaud it), are perfectly capable and generally quite willing to hit a "Donate" button every now and again, or of buying a product from their favorite content providers to help support their efforts. That's perfectly acceptable behavior. They give something back.
But unsolicited adverts are NOT cool. They are designed to take without asking, and they do messed up shit to the human brain as a result.
-FL
In the mobile market, apps may become custom web browsers. A fully featured web browser is a burden to the mobile device. Otherwise, Google Chrome is somewhat interesting because of its multitreaded feature but to me the hidden GoogleUpdater is annoying so I uninstalled Chrome.
But not a lot, its still a pathetically primitive browse, way behind Firefox. Still can't increase font sizes but zooms the entire page like it was a picture, thereby discriminating against millions of people who don't have the eyes of a 20 year old.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
i'll check it out
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Lets put that onto real life, shall we :
Don't want to get mugged ?
Simple : Do not walk there (at that time/with that smile/without paying attention/while phoning someone/with that interesting looking bag/those flashy clothes/etc).
Your "suggestion" is nothing more than straw-man reasoning. If we would have adopted that "just stay away" method of yours we would have been stuck with the strongest people having all the rights.
I consider the action of a website constantly punching me in the face with their advertisements as an agressive deed. One I somehow have, according to them (and you!), no right to evade or even complain about.
And alas, as those websites do mostly not have *any* way of leaving a response al the feed-back they get is the sound of money being dropped in their bank-account.
In short : As long as someone does not bother to ask if I'm willing to accept material that has *no* connection to the websites actual content but simply assumes the right to try to brain-fuck me (which is all an advertisement actually is) I retain the right to do as I please too.
See subject line silanea. You may attempt attacking a man rather than his points but I find it very unimpressive and you are rather far behind despite your b.s. you use here in my estimation. I am not apk and iirc, neither is he because APK usually signs off his posts as "APK". I am actually from Europe where iirc APK is from the USA also and you can ask your moderators on this much where I am from if you wish in fact. I have seen these debates of yours and others with APK though and he always has you all running with your tails between your legs each time by his use of facts you cannot disprove.
HOSTS files are messy, require admin to update, and can be a PITA to troubleshoot why X feature on Y website doesnt work, not to mention that they can severely impact network lookups. Theyre a really really kludgy hack.
Adblock Plus is available for Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, Mozilla Mobile and even SongBird [adblockplus.org], so your mail client and media player are ad-free, too. It offers an extension to the Mozilla Sync service, allowing you to share filters across devices.- by silanea (1241518) writes: on Tuesday July 20, @10:07AM (#32963666)
Does Adblock cover email programs like Outlook or Outlook Express and others?
No. HOSTS files by way of comparison do.
That's in response reply to your first post point which is now "null and void" as well as easily disproven.
Requiring internet access to update Adblock is so much worse than obtaining and updating your hosts file from online sources as per your advice under 6. exactly how?- by silanea (1241518) writes: on Tuesday July 20, @10:07AM (#32963666)
I never said it was you illiterate dimwit. Please learn to read as well as gaining some technical understanding of this science at these levels (things "IP").
Oh my, is apk still around? Aren't you getting bored of spreading your hosts file nonsense? - by silanea (1241518) writes: on Tuesday July 20, @10:07AM (#32963666)
It seems that all 10 of his points here that others used to extoll the virtues of HOSTS files still stand strong versus your obviously uninformed and limited skillset illustrated by your technically weak replies silanea.
Worse yet is the dolts that moderated your technically weak and erroneous reply upwards (doubtless yourself under different alternate registered user logon credentials, which is an easily seen thru childish trick for the weak).
Disclaimer: Yes, I know who that guy is and that discussion is futile. I am bored. Let me poke the troll. Brightens up the day every time.) - by silanea (1241518) writes: on Tuesday July 20, @10:07AM (#32963666)
I do also. He happens to be an internationally published and featured freeware author who also happens to have commercial software to his credit and appearances at noted technical contest like MS TECH ED for years in a row as a finalist in its toughest category. Do you have the same? I also know that APK has multiple degrees in the art and sciences of computing to his name and credit as well. Again, do you?? No to all of the above as far as a nobody done nothing ne'er do well like yourself silanea. Not even a close contest when comparing what apk's done versus the "likes of you"(a nobody).
HOSTS files are messy
No more than the plain-text scheme that any ad-blocking random extension uses. In fact, it's probably better.
require admin to update
As it should; you're affecting all programs on the system(s), the whole purpose of using a hosts file.
and can be a PITA to troubleshoot why X feature on Y website doesnt work
I guess this would count if it were a more common occurrence. Google Analytics is the only service I know of that can cause this. And it's not usually blocked. Because it's not annoying.
not to mention that they can severely impact network lookups
Yes, if you mean making content blocking actually faster than the mess of content parsing that your favorite extension uses. By contrast, a hosts block is an instantaneous alternate action taken for an issued DNS request - it's not some clumsy additional layer stacked on top of your browser for every page element.
and can be a PITA to troubleshoot why X feature on Y website doesnt work - by LordLimecat (1103839) writes: on Tuesday July 20, @02:51PM (#32968410)
easy fix is to "ping" the problematic site or page feature that doesn't works' source and if you get back a 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, then you know that this needs amendment in your host file (it's usually that or you have the wrong hostname/domainname hardcoded into your HOSTS file, which is the other possible use of HOSTS files besides blocking sites/servers in that you can speedup access to sites this way even more by doing such hardcodes, but, sometimes sites change their hosting provider or IP address and this needs amending sometimes, albeit, usually only rarely)
You are completely full of shit.
I don't use an ad-blocker, or a popup "blocker" (an utterly retarded concept, it's not like popup ads happen via remotely taking over your computer. A browser either supports popups or it doesn't), and I have, in the last month, seen ONE intrusive ad (a floating div). I left the site because I didn't want to bother reading a poorly-designed website when, this being the internet, the same or similar content was likely just around the corner.
People who say "I have no choice!" obviously don't understand the concept of the internet.
Let's actually put this into real life:
Don't like huge flashing signs? Stay out of Times Square. This logic works for millions of people every day,
And who the fuck mentioned rights?
You have the right, as in an actual inalienable right which no one has any authority to ever take away from you, to mangle whatever content you recieve on the internet and re-format it however you wish.
I have a right to call you an asshole for doing so, because I'd prefer you just stayed off the site if you don't want to look at it.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
How did that dumb reply from silanea get modded up 3 informative when he was easily shown as wrong in his first post when it was stated by those he replied to erroneously that outlook and outlook express for example are not even covered by adblock along with other email client programs? Can't silanea even read?? Apparently not, because his next reply #2 was indicative of further illiteracy issues on his part also, because the person he replied to never said that adblock or hosts were any different about obtaining updates and that person silanea replied to only told those HE replied to that both need to have internet access to update either hosts or adblock. It is fairly obvious that those here who put down hosts files are only alternate registered accounts used by silanea here because each time they posted (Lord Limecat being one example thereof), they were easily shown as incorrect and erroneous in their statements just like silanea has been shown to be by his own errors. Who does silanea think he is fooling?
Alas, by 'resources' the article is referring to page elements. Still waiting for the extension that can throttle on a per-plugin basis (*cough*FLASH*cough*) to say, 10% CPU across all its running instances.
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
You his brother? You sure write exactly like him, sans the retarded misuse of special chars and punctuation. Does not matter anyway, one AC is as good as another.
Besides, you have yet to respond to my two points. I challenged two of your claims. So what is your reply to what I said previously? Especially the second point?
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
[...] It is fairly obvious that those here who put down hosts files are only alternate registered accounts used by silanea [...]
Interesting. The same old "they're out to get me" BS. On the other hand it is only ACs who rush to defend that crap. Show me one single post in all the recent apk resurrections where a non-AC backed up apk's position.
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
you have yet to respond to my two points. I challenged two of your claims. So what is your reply to what I said previously? Especially the second point? - by silanea (1241518) writes: on Wednesday July 21, @03:15AM (#32974728)
Per subject above, you are obviously illiterate, and you missed my reply here:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32960808
(which easily put your weak so called "points" in the grave rather easily, and you have yet to disprove the other 10 points in favor of HOSTS files also, which of course, you cannot disprove at all)
Per subject above, you not only had your 2 rather weak points put to shame here in my other reply, but you stated I did not answer and disprove them? You are either full of it, deluding yourself, or as I suspect, quite illiterate.
The same old "they're out to get me" BS. On the other hand it is only ACs who rush to defend that crap. - by silanea (1241518) writes: on Wednesday July 21, @03:15AM (#32974728)
You undereducated illiterate skimming trolls, you're all the same: Playing "smart" when you are anything but that.
Care to show us you have some sort of degree in forensics to make your paranoid delusional estimates per your foaming at the mouth rant above?
Oh, that's right! You don't have training there anymore than you have degrees or professional decades of experience in computing related fields.
I am only posting in reply to yourself as an ac because I don't need you, a known troll around here, trolling my registered account endlessly. So go away now trolling loser. Go get some education instead of burning your life away on a forums board trying to "play smart", because you surely show that you require it based on your weak replies on 2 points others here made, and the fact that you had to avoid all 8 others as well of the 10 made in favor of hosts files.
Besides, you have yet to respond to my two points. I challenged two of your claims. So what is your reply to what I said previously? Especially the second point? - by silanea (1241518) writes: on Wednesday July 21, @03:15AM (#32974728)
Open mouth and insert foot (that's silanea the illiterate skimming retard shooting his mouth off and skimming posts again as well as fucking up hugely on technical issues) moron, and see below where your "so-called points" were shot to hell with facts and with great ease:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32968572
LMAO: silanea must be using "I Write Like" here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/17/i-write-like-website-goes_n_650037.html again. Give up already, you stupid troll silanea.
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32962812
and anyone else like you silanea, which means undereducated ne'er do well trolls that inhabit forums all day along and attempt to misinform others as you clearly do. Good luck disproving those 10 points above, which are in favor of hosts files, silanea, because you never will be able to or you would have by now.
The first post on hosts files was modded up silanea despite your objections. Additionally your attempts to put it down was immediately torn apart. You are stupid and boringly so silanea you troll.
silanea, the fact remains you got blown away here http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32968572 by your own illiteracy and your own stupidity plus lack of technical acumen on the subject at hand here, no matter what dumb spin you try to use.
So, tell me, which system has a hosts file that matches the entire URL rather than just a hostname? Regex filtering? CSS selectors? Many, MANY, MANY web sites host content on same server as ads, specifically to bypass this sort of primitive adblocking. Yes, hosts file was pretty nice back in the 90's. They don't cut the mustard any more.
Yes, hosts file was pretty nice back in the 90's. They don't cut the mustard any more. - by Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 22, @11:31AM (#32990698)
Per subject line above, see this data:
RESURRECTING THE KILLFILE:
(by Mr. Oliver Day)
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
PERTINENT EXCERPTS/QUOTES:
"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet particularly browsing the Web is actually faster now."
"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."
---
In addition to Mr. Day above? Tell what you said to the many 1,000's of folks from these websites that use and produce daily or nearly daily updated current HOSTS files also:
http://www.mvps.org/
http://someonewhocares.org/
http://hostsfile.mine.nu/hosts0
http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download
---
Many, MANY, MANY web sites host content on same server as ads, specifically to bypass this sort of primitive adblocking. - by Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 22, @11:31AM (#32990698)
Care to produce your list of "MANY, MANY" websites?
Otherwise, you've nothing but mere "anecdotal evidence" & for all we know, you are adblock's coder after all merely attempting to promote your product with misinformation!
However, the poster of the 10 points in favor of HOSTS files above here http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32962812 (especially over adblock alone) did note that using both adblock and hosts is the ideal world for the concept of layered security!
(Which makes some sense, because HOSTS files can do many things (see list of 10 above) that adblock or dns servers cannot do or do as efficiently as HOSTS files can, and the opposite may be possible per your example also, but per that list of 10 things in favor of HOSTS files, it seems HOSTS files do more alone and for more apps at a lower faster level of operation than adblock ever will...).
See subject-line above, and this article about how arstechnica actually detected for, and blocked, adblock users:
---
ArsTechnica blocking Adblock?
https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5266
---
So, so much for this "choice quote" (uninformed misinforming DRIVEL on your part is more like it) from you:
hosts file was pretty nice back in the 90's. They don't cut the mustard any more.
Oh, really? Well, lol, at least HOSTS files are not so easily detected for, and made USELESS no less, as adblock apparently can be, per the above proof that to effect no less!
(You people think you're going to "out think" the likes of me? Yea, lol... "right" (not))
On that note? Well - See above and in my other replies to you all here (too, Too, TOO EASY, just too easy), especially this one -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32991602 directed to YOU specifically, and this one -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32962812 directed to all my naysayers here).
I.E.? You're all mere ants attacking a mastodon, and failing badly due to lack of information to back you all, as well as lack of skills gained by experience and education in this art & science vs. myself with decades of BOTH to my credit vs. yourselves (amateurs).
10 ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER BROWSER ADDONS ALONE, & EVEN DNS SERVERS:
Taken from -> http://forums.windowsforum.org/index.php?s=35faafcfc2596ff0fdd2a54a2717153b&showtopic=33716&st=60
1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them)!
2.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).
3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).
4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).
5.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).
6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, updated and obtained (for reliable ones -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file[/url] OR see lists below ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)
7.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers, as they are NOT code, & because of what's next too
8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.
9.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE - NOt just a single webbrowser type (e.g. FireFox/Mozilla & its addons exemplify this, such as ADBLOCK)
10.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - You might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own, & this? This stops that cold, too! Bonus...
Still, it's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security".
---
To keep "ontop of the latest known malicious sites" online? See these sites:
START OF WEBSITES & SOURCES + TOOLS I USED TO POPULATE THIS LIST + MY ORIGINAL LIST OF BLOCKED ADBANNERS SERVERS
http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/
http://www.malwareur...isting-urls.php
https://zeustracker....p?filter=online
http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml
http://securitylabs....ent/alerts.aspx
http://www.stopbadware.org
http://blog.fireeye.com/
http://mtc.sri.com/
http://www.scansafe....r/threat_alerts
http://news.netcraft.com
http://www.shadowserver.org/
http://www.mvps.org/
http://someonewhocares.org/
http://hostsfile.mine.nu/hosts0
http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download
http://www.stopbadware.org/home
Between they, & SpyBot "Search & Destroy"? You have most of, if not ALL of what a "body needs" for these purposes.
one AC is as good as another. - by silanea (1241518) on Wednesday July 21, @3:15 AM (#32974728)
BRUCE PERENS ON SCUMBAGS LIKE SILANEA AND ENMASSE 100's of ACCOUNTS FOR DOWNMODDING OTHERS(some of these slime are also paid to do so as well, can you believe it?):
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1738364&cid=33089192
A direct quote is below, from the URL above by Bruce Perens, and it's directly in regards to scum like silanea and my subject line above:
It just takes one Ubuntu sympathizer or PR flack to minus-moderate any comment. Unfortunately, once PR agencies and so on started paying people to moderate online communities, and to have hundreds of accounts each, things changed. by Bruce Perens (3872) on Friday July 30, @04:55PM (#33089192) Homepage Journal
So much for your bullshit silanea - people are wise to your trolling scumbag kind on forums.
The same old "they're out to get me" BS. On the other hand it is only ACs who rush to defend that crap. - by silanea (1241518) on Wednesday July 21, @03:20AM (#32974748)
BRUCE PERENS ON SCUMBAGS LIKE SILANEA AND ENMASSE 100's of ACCOUNTS FOR DOWNMODDING OTHERS(some of these slime are also paid to do so as well, can you believe it?):
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1738364&cid=33089192
A direct quote is below, from the URL above by Bruce Perens, and it's directly in regards to scum like silanea and my subject line above:
It just takes one Ubuntu sympathizer or PR flack to minus-moderate any comment. Unfortunately, once PR agencies and so on started paying people to moderate online communities, and to have hundreds of accounts each, things changed. by Bruce Perens (3872) on Friday July 30, @04:55PM (#33089192) Homepage Journal
So much for your bullshit silanea - people are wise to your trolling scumbag kind on forums.